Released - Bush Hawk XP

[gajit]

Put that way, yes, it seems a bit petty. But the 7 FPS difference was from models that on the surface would seem to be much more complex than the Bushhawk. Other single engine props were at the capped 30 FPS and many go a bit higher if I uncap it, so the Bushhawk is closer to being 50-60% of the frame rate of similar planes. Also, that was under ideal conditions. If I throw in some inclement weather and a bit of traffic it slows down close to single digit rates, where other planes stay in the upper teens. For me that pretty much makes it unusable as a bush plane and I do find that disappointing.

Look, I don't want to slam this package. You get a lot for the price; a nice collection of model variants and a good looking set of missions for a great price. But there is a group of people that are having frame rate issues. The good news is that it appears that the developer is interested in trying to identify and solve the issue, and that makes me happy for now. I can't ask for much more than that.

Very well put George - Im waiting to see if something can be done before purchasing - I've learned the hardway before :mixedsmi:

 

[CodyValkyrie]

I can confirm that the development team is looking at solutions. There are a few things on the table now which I cannot discuss... or rather, it is not my place to discuss. Regardless, it is being looked into. Even if us, the beta testers, did not have this issue does not mean it might not exist. I tested on both Vista and XP with no issues, so I am saddened by this news. Have faith though, Aerosoft has a good reputation at looking into this stuff.

 

[gajit]

Wow - I've just had a look on the Aerosoft forum and amazed at the debate going on - such a shame about a good looking product.

I personnally think that many developers are getting a bit arrogant about the standards us buying simmers will put up with. If they are not careful they will find that the real downturn in the economy will be simulated in virtual-land.

 

[CodyValkyrie]

Much of that blame about the latest riot over there falls on my hands. There is a specific user that keeps popping up in this, and other forums that I think treats addons unfairly....

Just the other day he was griping about A2A Strat... Oh the stories I could tell you about him.

Anyways, I digress. All will be fixed for those with issues soon.

And I wonder why some teams don't want me being a spokesperson? :costumes:

 

[Lionheart]

Apropos of nothing, I heard a wonderful story recently from a pilot who occasionally used to transport cadavers for a mortician (you have to be very careful with the 'souls on board' entry in your flight plan!). This particular flight was through the Rockies in a 172. The body was in a body bag, strapped into the passenger seat, since you can't fit a coffin into a 172... It was night, the weather was bad: marginal VMC, rain, lightning, thunder, moderate turbulence - real Frankenstein stuff. Anyhow, there's this huge bolt of lightning; the radios flicker, and the body bag jolts upright! AAArrrggghhh!!!!!!!!!! Of course it was all pure coincidence, and bodies supposedly do twitch from time to time. but the aircraft seats needed cleaning before the plane could be used again!

LOLOL.... Thats too funny Tim.


George,

What I am saying about performance and computers is that these days, alot of people are having issues with products and its their computers and not necessarily the products fault all the time. Sometimes, yes, but with FSX, things have changed. I dont know why or what it is, perhaps some sort of chip designs, perhaps fiber languages or memory types or motherboard technology differences, but now, alot of planes are running differently on rigs of same specifications.. Some are saying that the F-18 Hornet in Accelleration is smooth and fast, but it would barely run on my computer.

EDIT: And I am not blaming FSX either. Computers seem to be the culprit alot these days.

Bill

 

[GeorgeM]

What I am saying about performance and computers is that these days, alot of people are having issues with products and its their computers and not necessarily the products fault all the time.

Which is exactly why I don't envy your job as an FS developer. I have experience in software development and I understand all too well the headaches that can come from all the various possible system configurations.

Kudos to the Bushhawk developer who seems open to communication and appears willing to work to find a solution. I give him a lot of credit for that; it would have been easy to say "tough luck, none of our beta testers had this problem".

Fingers crossed.

 

[Roger]

I'm happy with it. This shot is in Alaska and I have no intention of taking it to Tokyo New York or London.

 

[stiz]

i was thinking, seeing as how the bushhawk frame rate impact seems to variy a lot .. has anyone tried removeing the textures from the texture folder of the plane and seeing if that helps?? you will get a black aircraft but it will at least show if the problem is with the model file or the textures. Also how many seperate textures does it have?? FSX's performance really goes down if a plane has load of textures (so an identical bushhawk with 8 textures would perform loads better than one with 12).

I'm not registerd over at the Aerosoft forum or have the plane but if the plane has loads of textures it might explain it, if theres 4 1024x1024 textures then putting them on 1 2048x2048 texture would improve performance without any loss in detail. I know its a bit more work for the developer but if there isnt tons it shouldnt take more than a few days to do (well thats how long it me anyway).

i dont have the plane so feel free to ignore but its just an idea

 

[TimA]

I'm getting between 17 and 19 fps (locked at 20), which I regard as pretty good, on my laptop (T7600 @2.33 GHz, 4GB, 7950GTX Go, Vista 32) I certainly don't see any performance hit compared to other planes (subjective - I don't normally look at the fps counter)

 

[GeorgeM]

i was thinking, seeing as how the bushhawk frame rate impact seems to variy a lot .. has anyone tried removeing the textures from the texture folder of the plane and seeing if that helps??

I tried exactly that and it had minimal impact on FPS. I've converted the textures to DDS and that too had minimal impact. I'll probably reduce some of the texture sizes as discussed on the Aerosoft forums, but I don't think that's what's gonna produce the big win.

 

[CBris]

I am rebuilding a lo-res texture set as you write. My fellow beta testers are tearing it apart for me, so give us a bit of time. I can reduce a texture folder considerably - the master texture is currently down to 25 MB instead of 100.

I am really disappointed in the moans though - after all, I watch something like a dozen fora and the majority of new users are happy with the model, but "ye of little faith" make the most noise despite getting more FPS than the human eye can differentiate.

Anyway, it looks like I will be able to squeeze a few frames out for you. Give me a day and I'll submit them to the boss.

 

[stiz]

but "ye of little faith" make the most noise despite getting more FPS than the human eye can differentiate.

actually it depends on the eyes, for me the limit is around 28/30 anything lower and i can tell, yet others cant tell the difference down to around 10, the reason why people cant really tell in the movies is that they use motion blur to smooth it out, FS doesnt. Also if the human eye cant see more than 24fps, whys HD done at 60

 

[GeorgeM]

I am rebuilding a lo-res texture set as you write. My fellow beta testers are tearing it apart for me, so give us a bit of time. I can reduce a texture folder considerably - the master texture is currently down to 25 MB instead of 100.

Excellent, thanks! I'll wait for the master. :ernae:

I am really disappointed in the moans though - after all, I watch something like a dozen fora and the majority of new users are happy with the model, but "ye of little faith" make the most noise despite getting more FPS than the human eye can differentiate.

I understand you're close to the project, but please don't dismiss those of us with problems as moaners. I'm not normally an FPS junkie, but when I first loaded up this plane and looked around the VC with TrackIR, the panning was not smooth. My eyes differentiated a problem. If I try to fly this plane in conditions I regularly fly in I'll dip down close to single digit frame rates. That's very noticeable, and unenjoyable for me; others have different thresholds.

I own more add-on planes than I care to admit, and this truly stood out performance-wise. I was just trying to understand why. The developer's posts over on the Aerosoft forum have been enlightening, and I understand the issue better. Maybe the answer is to shelve this and wait till I have better hardware, but I'm really hoping you and he can combine on an alternative. This is a really sweet looking package.

 

[CodyValkyrie]

Well, there is hope. Other than my graphics card, my PC is not that amazing. Having a good FPS is critical for my work, being that I make promotional videos. There is light at the end of the tunnel for some of you guys that have issues.

 

[Panther_99FS]

I am really disappointed in the moans though -

Now....just imagine how the folks at AlphaSim feel - they experience moans with every release..

From what I can tell, they're valid issues (moans).....If this were freeware, it would be completely different..

Any who - As stated earlier, I'll most likely purchase this Bush Hawk after version 1.x is released

 

[CG_1976]

Is there a way to get the Kiwi texture onto the Amphib version?

 

[Epsillon]

On my computer, this plane is hard on framerate...

Aerosoft DHC-6 on floats at Interlaken: 22-24 fps
Maule M-760 at Interlaken: 24-27 fps
Bush Hawk XP at Interlaken: 12-14 fps

...but it is a beautiful plane and I hope that problems will be resolved soon.
My 2 cents...

Stephan

 

[bkeske]

Question: looks like the GPS has 3D knobs...any chance of 'stuffing' an RXP unit it it?

 

[MCDesigns]

OK, I just read thru this thread and checked the one at Aerosoft. I see no slagging on this addon, just concerns from those that are noticing an impact on their performance, no matter the FPS, they can tell.

Chris, with all due respect, I just don't agree with your perceptions. If you are happy with performance below 20fps, that is great, but why get upset with others that feel differently. I have mine locked at 30 (I find heli rotors don't spin smoothly under 30fps) and depending where I am flying I rarely even check the FPS counter unless I am having an issue.

I am not sure how to take this

I am really disappointed in the moans though - after all, I watch something like a dozen fora and the majority of new users are happy with the model, but "ye of little faith" make the most noise despite getting more FPS than the human eye can differentiate.

since I have not seen any posts from any moaners, only concerns from customers and would be customers.

One thing I learned in FS9, all the neat extras in the world don't make up for poor performance, which is why certain addon companies lost business from me.

I hope any concerns get ironed out and everyone is happy in the end!:ernae:

 

[glennc]

Brian,

How goes it?

I tried the FP GNS430 - no joy. The panels are built into the model. With some tweaking, the 2D pop-up can probably accept the FP and maybe the RXP units. Not so for the VC. Although I did a swap with FSPS, the unit rode over both the GNS and transponder but behind the knobs and everything else. It was a mess. I understand the 2D unit a bit better now. It's OK for my purposes with this airplane.

Other thing I've seen - this airplane is very sensitive to fuel imbalances. Switch tanks frequently.

Glenn